I think about this every day. I think art is fundamental to human existence.
Look back to the first humans. They were making cave paintings. Or check out Ancient Egypt and how they were erecting Pyramids to represent their Pharaohs.
For every corner of earth humans have ever settled and started civilization, there is a trace of art.
I feel like maybe we aren't revered like many other artists because we have focused too much on "shit that looks nice" technically but not shit that moves us emotionally. It's a concept I've given a lot of thought to recently and am looking to explore when I wrap up my shit that looks nice project. I think there's a lot of unexplored territory in that regard.
Why should we be revered? We make shit that looks nice, we're not creating something revolutionary.
Because without art, you cant have imagination and therefore you cant have invention in the truest sense of the world.
Artists are the avant garde, real expands into poor areas because artists 'beautify' these places into desirable locations, at which time artists are forced out due to rising rents.
And then they move on. Which is why Detroit will eventually find it's feet again. The artists are already buying up houses there for $10k
I feel like maybe we aren't revered like many other artists because we have focused too much on "shit that looks nice" technically but not shit that moves us emotionally. It's a concept I've given a lot of thought to recently and am looking to explore when I wrap up my shit that looks nice project. I think there's a lot of unexplored territory in that regard.
This is pretty true for our generation as artists, however the concept of this thread in general still made my day. :thumbup:
Which brings me to the point...for all of our service and sacrifice, why aren't we revered?
Why would we be revered? Most artists do art simply because they want to. A lot of them probably wouldn't do it at all if not for the necessity of money and paying the bills (where they'd rather do something they enjoy than something they hate).
You also make it sound like "artists" are the only people who have imaginations. As if everyone under the sun doesn't have their own ideas, concepts, or dreams - or even just preferences. Are we super fancy because we took the time to make pictures of them? Because we learned how to make them happen on computer screens? Would half of us even have learned to do that if we didn't hate other day jobs so much?
The world wouldn't be a gray slab of natural-only materials without dedicated artists. Why would it be? As soon as you bring preference into the mix, you have variety, which arguably creates art. Why the hell would everyone drive the same car? You think that because there's not a professional designer available that someone isn't just going to prefer the color blue? And if deciding "I like blue better than white" makes someone an artist, well then I think you've answered your own question so far as why we aren't revered.
Also, some artists are assholes. Just like some cops are assholes. Or some firefighters are assholes. Or some parents are assholes. Why should you be revered just because you give yourself a title? Or because someone else did? Are you just going to revere everyone with the label, because...because pyramids?
Not to mention, art is so subjective, what even counts? Every idea? Anything that involved thought or inspiration? Everyone has ideas. You're cut from the same stone as everyone else. What sets you apart isn't whether or not you decided to pick up a crayon, it's what you do with it.
Artists used to be revered. Russia (or the ex-sovient union) is one of the few places where artists' dedication and contribution is still regarded with reverence. In most of the western society, occupation is measured in terms of money, and most artist don't make so much.
I imagine the fine-art world was much limited back in the day, when artists would spend decades perfecting oil paintings and mastering their craft. With all due respect...
Most of what I've seen here is a modernistic response to art and artists.
Art did not start out as 'subjective'...that is to say "I like it, I hate it"
Art (Cave paintings at first come to mind) started out as a teaching or story telling tool. It was a device used for what was essentially reality TV.
Without the artistic use of 'The Line' we also wouldn't have the alphabet.
To put it another way, if you are still following me...:), the Pyramids would still be here, because it just requires that I stack one stone on top of another...
AND before you all start yelling that there would be stone masons and architects designing the pyramids, if we took those people out of the equation, then we just have a stack of similarly cut stones with no other purpose but to stand there until they collapse.
...and those Hieroglyphics? They wouldn't be there either.
Overall my most basic question is, how did culture not put the artist out front with all that artists have accomplished of the eons?
If we didn't have professional artists or designers, we'd just have bad looking things. That's all - Ever been handed a client's mockup of how they see a project? It's usually shit, but it'll contain all kinds of colours, shapes, layouts. They're just usually poorly considered, or executed.
I'd go as far as to say that we'd have more variety without professional design, as trends tend to funnel a lot of modern designers' creative output into niches that they know will look and feel attractive to their audience.
Cave paintings weren't art. It was more "writing with pictures", a visual language, seeing as there wouldn't have been a common dialect for them to share ideas, stories, and communicate through. Language isn't art, either. Though it's application can be.
Your point about the pyramids is strange, too. What was the point of building the pyramids? Was it to "just" (in quotation marks because we still don't know how they built them, or in what age they were built) pile a bunch of massive sandstone blocks on top of each other, or was it to build something so monumental and majestic and terrifying that the world shat it's pants upon seeing it?
Your subtraction of the architects from something like that after it's built is a non sequitur because their involvement was fundamental to the whole point of building the pyramids.
Overall my most basic question is, how did culture not put the artist out front with all that artists have accomplished of the eons?
Art galleries and museums - Massive, expensive, expansive buildings with security staff & systems, vaults, air-conditioned and all to protect and preserve these priceless works and artefacts. People from all over the world flock to these buildings every single day.
We would have 'generic' looking things, not necessarily 'good or bad' looking things.
There would be no 'point' in building the pyramid, it would be no different than building a rock wall for your garden...and that is my point.
It's true that people do 'flock' to museums, galleries, etc.,everyday...however, when I was at the Louvre, the tourists 'flocked' around the Mona Lisa...a very small painting behind thick glass, which was surrounded by a rope a good 15-20 feet out from the wall.
In comparison, the 'good' stuff is on the second floor..though there were few people who went to look for it.
I submit that non-artist people are generally artistically stupid, and could care less about the artist, other than to have a picture of themselves standing next to an incredibly over-rated painting, just to say "I saw the Mona Lisa"...
This is not to insult DaVinci who was a true Master of art and artistic endeavor, it is a good painting.
However there are thousands of excellent works in the museum which never get their own due. mainly because the museum and tourist industry of Paris, use the well known painting to bring the tourists in the first place.
But I'm getting off topic, which is, if you took all of the artistic people out of the equation, what would the world look like?
There are plenty of movies and books out there that explore this idea.
Really Katana it seems like you've decided that you've got everything figured out concerning what counts as art, how much it's worth, and how everyone should (and used to) react to it. Which, really, may be one reason we're not revered - since it seems to be a thing with artists to think, "This is how I see the world. It is the best and most true way to see the world."
Yes, creativity, ingenuity, and hard work have given humanity much throughout history. No, we shouldn't just revere everyone who considers themselves artists (and people don't). This is because some artists simply don't do anything worth revering, some are jerks, some don't make any attempt to better the world or the lives of those around them, and sometimes it just takes time to discover the worth of something. Perhaps 200 years from now when everyone lives in the Matrix, digital artists and games will be viewed as its grandfather and they'll "Oooooh" and "Aaaah" over archived versions of polycount. Who knows.
Though, if you're doing something with the expectation that you should be revered for it, you're probably doing it for the wrong reason.
I agree with a lot of what Two Listen said. Also, artists seem to get a bad reputation due to "modern art" lol. This picture comes to mind.
This reminds me of some of the people I often ran into in fine arts classes. The reality is most instructors that I've encountered have only worked in academia and the way they taught and spoke about art reflected that. This obviously isn't all schools or instructors, it's just that it's far too common for my own liking.
Often times most of it is just b.s., I enjoy the more objective approach to art where technique and craftsmanship are weighed much more heavily than the intention or message of the artist.
Creating a badly drawn genitalia and trying to explain to the class on how it is about world hunger just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather them be honest with themselves, rather than making it all out to be something that it is probably not.
It's true that people do 'flock' to museums, galleries, etc.,everyday...however, when I was at the Louvre, the tourists 'flocked' around the Mona Lisa...a very small painting behind thick glass, which was surrounded by a rope a good 15-20 feet out from the wall.
In comparison, the 'good' stuff is on the second floor..though there were few people who went to look for it.
I submit that non-artist people are generally artistically stupid, and could care less about the artist, other than to have a picture of themselves standing next to an incredibly over-rated painting, just to say "I saw the Mona Lisa"...
This is not to insult DaVinci who was a true Master of art and artistic endeavor, it is a good painting.
Why do you get to decide if the Mona Lisa is overrated?
There are more trained artists today than every before, thanks to the internet we can all get to see them basically anytime we want. As a culture, we're saturated with art like never before. And it's a good thing. Why aren't mothers revered more? Why aren't teachers? It's because there so many of them. Same with artists. Do you think many of the writers from 18 hundreds and earlier would have enjoyed the same level of notoriety if they'd been published today? Back then published writers were ultra rare. And now everyone has blogs.
Sorry guys, I'm not going to respond to this anymore. I was looking for an honest impartial discussion and observation about the world we live in, not a thread to defend my personal remarks made in that vein.
This thread was never about me, or the way I may or may not think. I am not after any personal glory or financial independence nor do I think I am entitled to anything.
So that's it for me.
Mods you can delete or lock the thread now....thanks.
I agree with a lot of what Two Listen said. Also, artists seem to get a bad reputation due to "modern art" lol. This picture comes to mind.
People and attitudes like this are why I feel I sometimes don't mesh with certain types of game artist.
People who have a problem with symbolism are the kind i would except to bring a dragon to an art show. Granted I don't have the resume to crit anyone for trying to make "cool stuff", but if you're gonna dismiss symbolism in art as "drooling retards", then you are probably pretty fucking stupid yourself. A guy jacking off on himself is maybe overdoing it a bit, but that's an extreme.
Sometimes I feel like this is this barrier to entry with games. Like the fact that I literally cannot sit through mindless bullshit like pacific rim and transformers means I probably wouldn't line up very well taste wise with a general type of person you meet working in game - not all, but quite a few. Which is sad, because what I see as a huge problem with modern gaming is way way too much pacific rim and Michael bay and not enough sopranos or Mathew weiner.
People and attitudes like this are why I feel I sometimes don't mesh with certain types of game artist.
People who have a problem with symbolism are the kind i would except to bring a dragon to an art show. Granted I don't have the resume to crit anyone for trying to make "cool stuff", but if you're gonna dismiss symbolism in art as "drooling retards", then you are probably pretty fucking stupid yourself. A guy jacking off on himself is maybe overdoing it a bit, but that's an extreme.
Sometimes I feel like this is this barrier to entry with games. Like the fact that I literally cannot sit through mindless bullshit like pacific rim and transformers means I probably wouldn't line up very well taste wise with a general type of person you meet working in game - not all, but quite a few. Which is sad, because what I see as a huge problem with modern gaming is way way too much pacific rim and Michael bay and not enough sopranos or Mathew weiner.
/rant, sorry for that.
Finding contemporary conceptual art to be bullshit is not exclusive to commercial artists, and the reasoning behind it is not necessarily exclusive to the work just not being "cool" and filled with dragons/robots. There is a huge community of realist fine artists who find the stuff appalling because it often lacks any kind of craft or demonstrated skill.
Before moving into games exclusively I worked in the fine art industry, making sculptures digitally for some pretty famous contemporary conceptual artists who cannot sculpt worth a damn on their own. They typically only have an asinine idea they think is subversive, lots of money to pay others to do their work, and no talent or skill to back it up.
If you think Duchamp's toilet has more intrinsic artistic value than a Bouguereau painting, we probably aren't going to see eye to eye. I don't think my position is automatically a stupid one to take though.
I never made a value judgement that symbolism/conceptual art is better than or more worthwhile than process art or skill art of realism, at all, and I never would , you did that for me for some reason. What I said was that dismissing all symbolism/conceptual art as bad or as a worthless field, the way that guy did en mass, makes you an idiot.
And again at the bottom you seem to suggest that I am saying one piece of conceptual art > one piece of traditional fine art. That's not something I would say, as I don't typically judge art against other pieces of art, or view one field as better than another.
I never made a value judgement that symbolism/conceptual art is better than or more worthwhile than process art or skill art of realism, at all, and I never would , you did that for me for some reason. What I said was that dismissing all symbolism/conceptual art as bad or as a worthless field, the way that guy did en mass, makes you an idiot.
And again at the bottom you seem to suggest that I am saying one piece of conceptual art > one piece of traditional fine art. That's not something I would say, as I don't typically judge art against other pieces of art, or view one field as better than another.
I'm not implying that you did or would. I'm just stating my own position, and explaining how those who don't like conceptual art are not necessarily automatic idiots. My hypothetical match-up of Duchamp and Bouguereau was exactly that, hypothetical. I have no idea what you think of the two artists, and I don't understand why you thought otherwise?
I'd like to start a dialog on what you actually think about the matter, but it's hard to if you cannot make value judgement on various pieces of art. I'm pretty sure you could assess the merits of two pieces of commercial art objectively, as we do this every day as professional artists.
You quoted me, then used language like "if you..", how am I supposed to know you've constructed some hypothetical individual while replying with pronouns that address me specifically?
I apologize for being ambiguous but I thought I was just obviously posing a hypothetical viewpoint that you may or may not have agreed with, and which many in the fine art world do agree with, inviting you to give your actual opinion on the two artists.
Replies
Look back to the first humans. They were making cave paintings. Or check out Ancient Egypt and how they were erecting Pyramids to represent their Pharaohs.
For every corner of earth humans have ever settled and started civilization, there is a trace of art.
Why should we be revered? We make shit that looks nice, we're not creating something revolutionary.
A lot of Artist are revered.
Imagine a world with no artistic design...
Because without art, you cant have imagination and therefore you cant have invention in the truest sense of the world.
Artists are the avant garde, real expands into poor areas because artists 'beautify' these places into desirable locations, at which time artists are forced out due to rising rents.
And then they move on. Which is why Detroit will eventually find it's feet again. The artists are already buying up houses there for $10k
This is pretty true for our generation as artists, however the concept of this thread in general still made my day. :thumbup:
Why would we be revered? Most artists do art simply because they want to. A lot of them probably wouldn't do it at all if not for the necessity of money and paying the bills (where they'd rather do something they enjoy than something they hate).
You also make it sound like "artists" are the only people who have imaginations. As if everyone under the sun doesn't have their own ideas, concepts, or dreams - or even just preferences. Are we super fancy because we took the time to make pictures of them? Because we learned how to make them happen on computer screens? Would half of us even have learned to do that if we didn't hate other day jobs so much?
The world wouldn't be a gray slab of natural-only materials without dedicated artists. Why would it be? As soon as you bring preference into the mix, you have variety, which arguably creates art. Why the hell would everyone drive the same car? You think that because there's not a professional designer available that someone isn't just going to prefer the color blue? And if deciding "I like blue better than white" makes someone an artist, well then I think you've answered your own question so far as why we aren't revered.
Also, some artists are assholes. Just like some cops are assholes. Or some firefighters are assholes. Or some parents are assholes. Why should you be revered just because you give yourself a title? Or because someone else did? Are you just going to revere everyone with the label, because...because pyramids?
Not to mention, art is so subjective, what even counts? Every idea? Anything that involved thought or inspiration? Everyone has ideas. You're cut from the same stone as everyone else. What sets you apart isn't whether or not you decided to pick up a crayon, it's what you do with it.
I imagine the fine-art world was much limited back in the day, when artists would spend decades perfecting oil paintings and mastering their craft. With all due respect...
Coffee, all over my monitor... thanks dude
Art did not start out as 'subjective'...that is to say "I like it, I hate it"
Art (Cave paintings at first come to mind) started out as a teaching or story telling tool. It was a device used for what was essentially reality TV.
Without the artistic use of 'The Line' we also wouldn't have the alphabet.
To put it another way, if you are still following me...:), the Pyramids would still be here, because it just requires that I stack one stone on top of another...
AND before you all start yelling that there would be stone masons and architects designing the pyramids, if we took those people out of the equation, then we just have a stack of similarly cut stones with no other purpose but to stand there until they collapse.
...and those Hieroglyphics? They wouldn't be there either.
Overall my most basic question is, how did culture not put the artist out front with all that artists have accomplished of the eons?
I'd go as far as to say that we'd have more variety without professional design, as trends tend to funnel a lot of modern designers' creative output into niches that they know will look and feel attractive to their audience.
Cave paintings weren't art. It was more "writing with pictures", a visual language, seeing as there wouldn't have been a common dialect for them to share ideas, stories, and communicate through. Language isn't art, either. Though it's application can be.
Your point about the pyramids is strange, too. What was the point of building the pyramids? Was it to "just" (in quotation marks because we still don't know how they built them, or in what age they were built) pile a bunch of massive sandstone blocks on top of each other, or was it to build something so monumental and majestic and terrifying that the world shat it's pants upon seeing it?
Your subtraction of the architects from something like that after it's built is a non sequitur because their involvement was fundamental to the whole point of building the pyramids.
Art galleries and museums - Massive, expensive, expansive buildings with security staff & systems, vaults, air-conditioned and all to protect and preserve these priceless works and artefacts. People from all over the world flock to these buildings every single day.
There would be no 'point' in building the pyramid, it would be no different than building a rock wall for your garden...and that is my point.
It's true that people do 'flock' to museums, galleries, etc.,everyday...however, when I was at the Louvre, the tourists 'flocked' around the Mona Lisa...a very small painting behind thick glass, which was surrounded by a rope a good 15-20 feet out from the wall.
In comparison, the 'good' stuff is on the second floor..though there were few people who went to look for it.
I submit that non-artist people are generally artistically stupid, and could care less about the artist, other than to have a picture of themselves standing next to an incredibly over-rated painting, just to say "I saw the Mona Lisa"...
This is not to insult DaVinci who was a true Master of art and artistic endeavor, it is a good painting.
However there are thousands of excellent works in the museum which never get their own due. mainly because the museum and tourist industry of Paris, use the well known painting to bring the tourists in the first place.
But I'm getting off topic, which is, if you took all of the artistic people out of the equation, what would the world look like?
There are plenty of movies and books out there that explore this idea.
But before there were plumbers...there was a person who created that beautiful sloping design.
before there were toilets, there were holes cut into wooden planks....
Yes, creativity, ingenuity, and hard work have given humanity much throughout history. No, we shouldn't just revere everyone who considers themselves artists (and people don't). This is because some artists simply don't do anything worth revering, some are jerks, some don't make any attempt to better the world or the lives of those around them, and sometimes it just takes time to discover the worth of something. Perhaps 200 years from now when everyone lives in the Matrix, digital artists and games will be viewed as its grandfather and they'll "Oooooh" and "Aaaah" over archived versions of polycount. Who knows.
Though, if you're doing something with the expectation that you should be revered for it, you're probably doing it for the wrong reason.
This reminds me of some of the people I often ran into in fine arts classes. The reality is most instructors that I've encountered have only worked in academia and the way they taught and spoke about art reflected that. This obviously isn't all schools or instructors, it's just that it's far too common for my own liking.
Often times most of it is just b.s., I enjoy the more objective approach to art where technique and craftsmanship are weighed much more heavily than the intention or message of the artist.
Creating a badly drawn genitalia and trying to explain to the class on how it is about world hunger just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather them be honest with themselves, rather than making it all out to be something that it is probably not.
This thread was never about me, or the way I may or may not think. I am not after any personal glory or financial independence nor do I think I am entitled to anything.
So that's it for me.
Mods you can delete or lock the thread now....thanks.
People and attitudes like this are why I feel I sometimes don't mesh with certain types of game artist.
People who have a problem with symbolism are the kind i would except to bring a dragon to an art show. Granted I don't have the resume to crit anyone for trying to make "cool stuff", but if you're gonna dismiss symbolism in art as "drooling retards", then you are probably pretty fucking stupid yourself. A guy jacking off on himself is maybe overdoing it a bit, but that's an extreme.
Sometimes I feel like this is this barrier to entry with games. Like the fact that I literally cannot sit through mindless bullshit like pacific rim and transformers means I probably wouldn't line up very well taste wise with a general type of person you meet working in game - not all, but quite a few. Which is sad, because what I see as a huge problem with modern gaming is way way too much pacific rim and Michael bay and not enough sopranos or Mathew weiner.
/rant, sorry for that.
Finding contemporary conceptual art to be bullshit is not exclusive to commercial artists, and the reasoning behind it is not necessarily exclusive to the work just not being "cool" and filled with dragons/robots. There is a huge community of realist fine artists who find the stuff appalling because it often lacks any kind of craft or demonstrated skill.
Before moving into games exclusively I worked in the fine art industry, making sculptures digitally for some pretty famous contemporary conceptual artists who cannot sculpt worth a damn on their own. They typically only have an asinine idea they think is subversive, lots of money to pay others to do their work, and no talent or skill to back it up.
If you think Duchamp's toilet has more intrinsic artistic value than a Bouguereau painting, we probably aren't going to see eye to eye. I don't think my position is automatically a stupid one to take though.
And again at the bottom you seem to suggest that I am saying one piece of conceptual art > one piece of traditional fine art. That's not something I would say, as I don't typically judge art against other pieces of art, or view one field as better than another.
I'm not implying that you did or would. I'm just stating my own position, and explaining how those who don't like conceptual art are not necessarily automatic idiots. My hypothetical match-up of Duchamp and Bouguereau was exactly that, hypothetical. I have no idea what you think of the two artists, and I don't understand why you thought otherwise?
I'd like to start a dialog on what you actually think about the matter, but it's hard to if you cannot make value judgement on various pieces of art. I'm pretty sure you could assess the merits of two pieces of commercial art objectively, as we do this every day as professional artists.